According to this.
Hang on to your hats. This could be very interesting for a variety of reasons.
Our government passed the House of Lords Act in 1999. This is known as General Legislation. The Act removed (hereditary) Peers of the Realm from the HoL. They were denied access to their seats. This is a no-no. A very big no-no.
So it transpires that:
"Removal of a Peer of the Realm from his seat in the House of Lords cannot be procured by General Legislation, such as the Blair Government’s House of Lords Act 1999.
This piece of General Legislation did NOT empower Her Majesty’s Government to impede a single Hereditary Peer who had taken his or her seat in the House of Lords after having sworn the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, from continuing to carry out their solemn duties in the House of Lords as Councillors to the Crown, in accordance with the British Constitution."
Now, because they unlawfully interfered with the way the HoL operates, any and all legislation enacted since 2000 is null and void. Including, I am delighted to add, the vile and childish smoking ban, plus every single statute vomited on us from the EU. Naturally, the Lisbon Treaty is also null & void. Cool. We just left the European Union!
As previously stated, I am no legal expert. Perhaps some of my more astute readers (that would be all of you) could offer their opinions in the comments section?
The ramifications, of course, would be enormous.
Do read the whole article as it has a lot more nuggets than I placed here for your delectation. The author backs up his/her assertions with letters from members of the House of Lords and text from Hansard.
EDIT: some background info on the author.
CR.
New tag-line:
"Bringing scary shit to your attention since 2009".
32 comments:
Food for thought CR, certainly worth a bit more research eh?
Brilliant link Captain
Ive nicked it and posted it to everyone i know
just off to practice a bit of blatant civil disobediance with ciggies,alcohol and enclosed public spaces.What larks!
Reckon so Drabzz.
The authors credentials appear to be impeccable so we can't decry the source....
CR.
Good man Merv!
No civil disobedience necessary though if all the statutes were enacted illegally.
Even the Terrorism Act (2000) is consigned to the dustbin. No more stops under Section 44! What will plod do now???
CR.
Good news indeed, CR, so in that case, there is nothing to stop Cameron from carrying out a mass repeal of Labour "laws" - just as he promised the would - we can hold him to it!
Technically, he doesn't even have to repeal them Spidey. Just announce that the HoL had no power to ratify any statutes due to illegalities in the constitution and that all statutes during this period (2000-2010) are struck from the rolls.
We need to:
1. Double-check that Christopher Story is right
2. Scream like fuck until something is done
CR.
Ah, you're a fan of his, too, Captain! He's a heck of a long read, so it takes a while to get through.
What if he's right, and all laws since 2000 are null and void? What if the incoming government refuses to recognise the supposed fact and carries on regardless?
How might that affect international treaties that have been signed?
Wouldn't that mean that the Queen herself acted illegally in giving her assent to bills and treaties?
I really just found him Mrs F.
This is staggering news, if it's true.
The reverberations will deafen us all for some time. Anything that has had to transit the House of Lords in the last ten years has to be scrapped.
The queen was already acting illegally by giving assent to any Act that transferred her powers to a foreign entity. She has committed treason over 2200 times in the last ten years alone. Her first act of treason was in 1972 when she inked Ted Heaths European Communities Act.
She's been a very, very naughty girl.
It was on Tony Blairs watch that this latest fiasco ocurred.
It only proves what I have been saying for the last year: these useless bastards don't even read their own legislation.
CR.
That sounds like it might be a good one for the NOUICOR, does it not?
Anon,
Mine already says that statutes don't apply to me any longer. I was covered.
So is everyone else now!!
CR.
Captain,
Interesting but nothing will change!
TMM,
We need one of the bad guys (currently in gaol) convicted under one of these statutes to appeal, citing the info here as evidence. If he/she gets off, we know the info is solid.
Is there a blog that all prisoners can access?
CR.
Blackstone is quite clear about the composition of a lawful Parliament:
"..each and all the earls and barons and their peers ought to be summoned and to come;..".
So is Erskine May:
"The prerogatives of the Crown, in connection with the legislature, are
of paramount importance. The legal existence of Parliament results from
the exercise of royal prerogative. As "supreme governor, as well in all
spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal,"4 the King
virtually appoints the archbishops and bishops, who, as "lords
spiritual," form one of the three estates of the realm.5 All titles of
honour are the gift of the Crown, and thus the "lords temporal" also,
who form the remainder of the upper house, have been created by royal
prerogative, and their number may be increased at pleasure. In early
times the summons of peers to attend Parliament depended entirely on the
royal will but their hereditary titles have long since been held to
confer a right to sit in Parliament...".
Without all the Peers it is not a Parliament.
Regards, John Hurst.
CR,
Can you email me (through my blog)
Much appreciated.
WfW,
It is done.
CR.
Thanks John.
That overwhelmingly supports the report by Christopher Story then.
More grist to the mill.
CR.
MPs didn't read the legislation they passed for a variety of reasons:
* Debate was frequently guillotined by Labour;
* Bills ran to 1000s of pages in some cases;
* Despite the length of the Bills, MPs were often only given a few days to read them - in some cases, a few hours;
* The Whip system made their participation virtually unnecessary - except to vote.
Nevertheless, MPs could have made a fuss about this. After all, we put them in office and their duty is to represent us - not the party.
They allowed themselves to accept the status quo because the system gaveth the b@stards wads of our money with a wink and a nod. Hush money, if you like.
This info needs to be spread far and wide.
'Twould be wunnerful, Cap'n.
CR. The Global Analysis editor is incorrect IMHO in suggesting that a lawful Parliament can be restored by repeal of the 1999 House of Lords Act by a new administration after the forthcoming election.
A new parliament under the present regime will be incomplete and therefore invalid. Only a complete recall of the hereditary peers will make a lawful Parliament with power to repeal the 1999 Act.
It seems to me that the most important issue was the unlawful exclusion of the hereditary Peer's from the Palace of Westminster from 2000 to date. It infringed their common law rights and,as the quotes from Blackstone and Erskine May confirm, shut Parliament down.
The tricky bit will be getting the Courts to acknowledge this. It needs to be done though.
Regards, John Hurst.
If true very interesting, however I would be amazed if "they" (i.e. "the powers that be" of their UK/EU "law and order") let themselves be run out of town on this matter.
"They" have too much to lose.
"They" are the bully state with many guns, weapons, jails and courts to use against those they bully. Theirs courts (which are in fact private companies) will not find against them.
dear john surely we should then contact the hereditary Peer's that got unseated in 2000 and get them to contest this matter? also have a brunch of them turn up to the house of lords and see if them get access or not? if not them court action. need the msm to report on these and following events
Interestingly, income tax has to be made @legal@ every year, in the Finance Act (can't be bothered to find details, but it is true).
Therefore, as few people owe an awful lot of people a awful lot of money.
Marv,
I hadn't thought of that but you are right.
Every year some sort of "emergency" session is held in which attendees all vote for income tax to continue in that fiscal year.
So that's null & void as well.
Super.
Now. What can we do about this latest revelation? I'm guessing that the MSM wouldn't touch it even wearing surgical gloves.
As suggested earlier, I think we need a Peer with a sufficiently large wallet to challenge this in the courts.
CR.
CR. My partner in legal research, Mike Burke, and I are looking into this issue. We have some previous because we were involved in the Magna carta Societies raising of a Baron's Committee in 1999 over the Nice Treaty.
Regarding Letters Patent, and subject to the usual caution in using Wikipedia, here is what it says about them" In the United Kingdom and countries formerly under that country's influence, letters patent are issued under the prerogative powers of the head of state ("royal prerogative"). They constitute a rare, if significant, form of legislation without the consent of the parliament. Letters patent may also be used to grant assent to legislation....".
In other words the issue is the status of the Royal Prerogative vs. Parliamentary Statutes.
That is good news because the Courts are reluctant to enquire into the validity of statutes but they have a clear obligation to asses the validity of prerogatives as Halsbury's Laws of England confirms:
"28. The Crown’s duty towards the subject.
The essential duties of the Crown towards the subject1 are now to be found expressed in the terms of the oaths which every monarch is required to take before or at the coronation. The duties imposed by the coronation oath2 are:
(1) to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the dominions etc belonging or pertaining to them according to their respective laws and customs3;
(2) to cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all judgments, to the monarch’s power;...".
368. Relations of prerogative to common law and statute.
The prerogative is thus derived from1 and limited by the common law, and the monarch can claim no prerogatives except such as the law allows2. In particular no prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute3, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject4.
The courts have jurisdiction, therefore, to inquire into the existence or extent of any alleged prerogative5, it being a maxim of the common law that the King ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the King6. If any prerogative is disputed, the courts must decide the question whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law7.
Regards, John Hurst.
PS. My partner has a hospital appointment this afternoon. I will get back to you later on.
Thanks John.
It's great to know that someone with relevant experience is looking closely at this.
Whenever you are ready, please treat my blog as if it were your own. I am more than happy to post your findings here.
CR.
CR is there a way to send you my land line number off line?
Yes indeedy.
Wing a note to captainranty at btinternet dot com
I will send you my contact details. I am in Libya at the moment but will be home later this week. Let's have a chat then.
CR.
This sort of thing has been tried before.
Rowan Atkinsons brother took the Home Secretary to court over seceding sovereignty to Europe. The courts are never going to play ball, regardless of the legal arguments. I'm afraid this sort of legal machinations is the wrong strategy.
Kit,
Maybe so, but Lawful Rebellion is a new factor and there are signs that the Judiciary are waking up.
Regards, John Hurst.
I haven't read the original article yet. Mind you, I am a bit concerned that the author seems to believe in the Illuminati. Still, strange beliefs don't invalidate the person's othe beliefs or any evidence they supply about other matters.
I saw reference to the UK in one of the comments. It always puzzles me that the UK is referred to in legal documents as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No mention of the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Hebrides, Orkneys, Sheltlands, and others. They are not in the island of Great Britain. Could this invalidate documents that contain that description of the UK?
MB.
I don't know MB. It is a valid and interesting point. (I agree with you about the Illuminati thing too).
I wonder though, if when a definition of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was mooted, it included the islands?
That way they need only say it once and it becomes de facto.
Words are strange when they morph into Legalese.
One example is "of". It means (in Legalese) without.
On it's own that means little.
Now imagine that words legal definition when you think about the United States of America.
Whole new meaning.
For all intents and purposes the United States are simply that. America however, is the District of Columbia. Like the City of London has nothing to do with London (or the UK for that matter) and the Vatican is an entirely separate enclave within Italy.
Capisce?
CR.
Post a Comment